As one of America's most unethical big businesses, they will use any loophole they can find, to try and get adolescents addicted to their products. There was a law that was passed that cigarettes could not be flavored, so that yound people would become addicted to the cigarettes. They then flavored cigars, to get teens addicted to them, since the law did not specify the cigars as not having any flavor.

They are perhaps the most evil big business allowed to thrive. They have commited crimes against humanity, by fooling people that cigarettes were harmless, when they turned out to have significant amounts of carcinogens in them. Even when the science suggested that cigarettes could be harmful to human health, the Tobacco Industry tried and suppress the science so that they can get their dirty money. Evil significantly understates how morally unjust the Tobacco Industry is. They put an addictant to get people to get their product, even though there is absolutely NOTHING good about their product whatsoever. With chemicals like rat poison in cigarettes, it is worth questioning with regard to if their primary intent was to kill people.

They have probably killed hundreds of thousands of people and perhaps millions of people with cigarettes and other various other tobacco products through lung cancer and various other cancers.

Yet this disgustingly pathetic business is allowed to thrive and kill yet more people with their toxic products.

Is it then odd that some of the same groups and people who helped create the confusion around the science positions on tobacco products are now involved with the creation of confusion around the science positions on global climate change?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Is it then odd that some of the same groups and people who helped create the confusion around the science positions on tobacco products are now involved with the creation of confusion around the science positions on global climate change?

I think there are very few, if any, scientists, who were affiliated with the tobacco industry who are now affiliated with Climate Change Science. I can see lobby groups like the Heartland Institute (whom I pay no attention to) previously supporting the Tobacco Industry, but scientists? Probably not.

Is it then odd that some of the same groups and people who helped create the confusion around the science positions on tobacco products are now involved with the creation of confusion around the science positions on global climate change?

I think there are very few, if any, scientists, who were affiliated with the tobacco industry who are now affiliated with Climate Change Science. I can see lobby groups like the Heartland Institute (whom I pay no attention to) previously supporting the Tobacco Industry, but scientists?Probably not.

Yes, scientists get into all kinds of mischeif! As can be seen in the organics thread, Ingram Olken was tied to debunking the dangers of tobacco and is now involved in debunking the value of organics.

Is it then odd that some of the same groups and people who helped create the confusion around the science positions on tobacco products are now involved with the creation of confusion around the science positions on global climate change?

I think there are very few, if any, scientists, who were affiliated with the tobacco industry who are now affiliated with Climate Change Science. I can see lobby groups like the Heartland Institute (whom I pay no attention to) previously supporting the Tobacco Industry, but scientists?Probably not.

Yes, scientists get into all kinds of mischeif! As can be seen in the organics thread, Ingram Olken was tied to debunking the dangers of tobacco and is now involved in debunking the value of organics.

And that one paper which may or may not have been useful to the tobacco industry is tied to the new research how? What of the rest of the dozen researchers? Were they in the tobacco research too?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Yes, scientists get into all kinds of mischeif! As can be seen in the organics thread, Ingram Olken was tied to debunking the dangers of tobacco and is now involved in debunking the value of organics.

And that one paper which may or may not have been useful to the tobacco industry is tied to the new research how? What of the rest of the dozen researchers? Were they in the tobacco research too?[/quote]

No. They are probably too young. So, I wonder what their agenda is? Do they have one, or were they just being lazy?

In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.

Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."

Quote:

"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].

In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.

Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.

Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."

Quote:

Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.

What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food.

Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.

Yes, scientists get into all kinds of mischeif! As can be seen in the organics thread, Ingram Olken was tied to debunking the dangers of tobacco and is now involved in debunking the value of organics.

And that one paper which may or may not have been useful to the tobacco industry is tied to the new research how? What of the rest of the dozen researchers? Were they in the tobacco research too?

No. They are probably too young. So, I wonder what their agenda is? Do they have one, or were they just being lazy?

Being lazy? In what way is publishing such a study lazy? I suspect the only agenda is with the source you quoted.

Quote:

In any case, the Stanford report's unorthodox measure "makes little practical or clinical sense," notes Charles Benbrook -- formerly Executive Director, Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences: What people "should be concerned about [is]... not just the number of [pesticide] residues they are exposed to" but the "health risk they face." Benbrook notes "a 94% reduction in health risk" from pesticides when eating organic foods.

Assessing pesticide-driven health risks weighs the toxicity of the particular pesticide. For example the widely-used pesticide atrazine, banned in Europe, is known to be "a risk factor in endocrine disruption in wildlife and reproductive cancers in laboratory rodents and humans."

Which is connected to NUTRITION in what fashion? The definition of nutrition does not include these diversions.

Quote:

Quote:

"Very few studies" included by the Stanford researchers, notes Benbrook, "are designed or conducted in a way that could isolate the impact or contribution of a switch to organic food from the many other factors that influence a given individual's health." They "would be very expensive, and to date, none have been carried out in the U.S." [emphasis added].

In other words, simple prudence should have prevented these scientists from using "evidence" not designed to capture what they wanted to know.

Moreover, buried in the Stanford study is this all-critical fact: It includes no long-term studies of people consuming organic compared to chemically produced food: The studies included ranged from just two days to two years. Yet, it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.

Consider these studies not included: The New York Times notes three 2011 studies by scientists at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan that studied pregnant women exposed to higher amounts of an organophosphate pesticide. Once their children reached elementary school they "had, on average, I.Q.'s several points lower than those of their peers."

Again the definition of nutrtition seems to be "adjusted" to the point it is no longer recognized by any currect medical dictionary.

Quote:

Quote:

Thus, it is reprehensible for the authors of this overview to even leave open to possible interpretation that their compilation of short-term studies can determine anything about the human-health impact of pesticides.

What also disturbs me is that neither in their journal article nor in media interviews do the Stanford authors suggest that concern about "safer and healthier" might extend beyond consumers to the people who grow our food.

Many choose organic to decrease chemicals in food production because of the horrific consequences farm workers and farmers suffer from pesticide exposure. U.S. farming communities are shown to be afflicted with, for example, higher rates of: "leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma" -- in addition to skin, lip, stomach, brain and prostate cancers," reports the National Cancer Institute. And, at a global level, "an estimated 3 million acute pesticide poisonings occur worldwide each year," reports the World Health Organization. Another health hazard of pesticides, not hinted at in the report, comes from water contamination by pesticides. They have made the water supply for 4.3 million Americans unsafe for drinking.

An even more tortured definition than that previously used. Who was it that asked about an agenda? It seems once definitions have to be so so tortured as to be unrelated to the previous use there is an agneda involved.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Is it then odd that some of the same groups and people who helped create the confusion around the science positions on tobacco products are now involved with the creation of confusion around the science positions on global climate change?

I think there are very few, if any, scientists, who were affiliated with the tobacco industry who are now affiliated with Climate Change Science. I can see lobby groups like the Heartland Institute (whom I pay no attention to) previously supporting the Tobacco Industry, but scientists?Probably not.

Yes, scientists get into all kinds of mischeif! As can be seen in the organics thread, Ingram Olken was tied to debunking the dangers of tobacco and is now involved in debunking the value of organics.

What is the agenda for discussing such a tenuous connection between tobacco and the nutrition of organic foods?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Yes, scientists get into all kinds of mischeif! As can be seen in the organics thread, Ingram Olken was tied to debunking the dangers of tobacco and is now involved in debunking the value of organics.[/quote]

What is the agenda for discussing such a tenuous connection between tobacco and the nutrition of organic foods? [/quote]

Shows corporate dishonesty. I thought that was fairly obvious.

So .... hmmmm ..... the misleading Stanford study had no funding, right?I really, really, really, doubt that! They just haven't told us who is backing them.Of course most people who have given it any thought have a pretty clear idea of the politics involved in this one!

Yes, scientists get into all kinds of mischeif! As can be seen in the organics thread, Ingram Olken was tied to debunking the dangers of tobacco and is now involved in debunking the value of organics.

Quote:

What is the agenda for discussing such a tenuous connection between tobacco and the nutrition of organic foods?

Shows corporate dishonesty. I thought that was fairly obvious.

No, the fairly obvious aspect is the ATTEMPT to claim some form of corporate dishonesty connected like the degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.

Quote:

So .... hmmmm ..... the misleading Stanford study had no funding, right?

The study is only misleading to those who falsely believe "organic" equals more nutrition and those who believe an ad hominem is a valid approach.

Quote:

I really, really, really, doubt that! They just haven't told us who is backing them.Of course most people who have given it any thought have a pretty clear idea of the politics involved in this one!

You mean those who make leaps of faith assumtions and expect them to be taken for something more substantial?

A leap of faith? More like having no faith ..... in the corporate atructures in place in the US today, ESPECIALLY the agr-business corporations involved in taking over the food supply (How many are there now, 4?)

Yes, scientists get into all kinds of mischeif! As can be seen in the organics thread, Ingram Olken was tied to debunking the dangers of tobacco and is now involved in debunking the value of organics.

Quote:

What is the agenda for discussing such a tenuous connection between tobacco and the nutrition of organic foods?

Shows corporate dishonesty. I thought that was fairly obvious.

No, the fairly obvious aspect is the ATTEMPT to claim some form of corporate dishonesty connected like the degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon.

Quote:

So .... hmmmm ..... the misleading Stanford study had no funding, right?

The study is only misleading to those who falsely believe "organic" equals more nutrition and those who believe an ad hominem is a valid approach.

Quote:

I really, really, really, doubt that! They just haven't told us who is backing them.Of course most people who have given it any thought have a pretty clear idea of the politics involved in this one!

You mean those who make leaps of faith assumtions and expect them to be taken for something more substantial?

animal-friendly wrote:

A leap of faith? More like having no faith ..... in the corporate atructures in place in the US today, ESPECIALLY the agr-business corporations involved in taking over the food supply (How many are there now, 4?)

Sorry, maybe I should have said the leap of faith in your conspiracy theory since there is nothing but a slim conspiracy theory being applied here.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein